Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Bruen - Illustrating The Breezy Idiocy of 2nd Amendment Absurdism....Why Free Ride.
Bruen - Illustrating The Breezy Idiocy of 2nd Amendment Absurdism....Why Free Ride.
By Blackvegetable
22 Jan 2026 9:06 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
22 Jan 2026 9:06 am
As his legions of Hatahs are painfully aware, Master Vegetable has been unstinting in his contempt for Bruen and Heller, two shibboleths supporting the straw temple of The Individual Right...
Since the author of the latter was found smothered under a fat kid, erect but forever breathless, the burden of generating the supportive pap for ammosexuals was placed on the intellectually narrow, child bearing shoulders of Justice Free Ride Thomas....with the predictably hilarious result of Bruen.
It has become a sport since, within the junior circuits, to put SCOTUS on a spot obliging a defense of many of the absurd consequences of Free Ride's legacy, as in Rahimi. In that instance, his fellow conservatives hung him out to dry, leaving him alone to pen a churlish dissent.
Now Hawaii is back, and the risible flimsiness of Heller and Bruen are being highlighted.
https://www.vox.com/politics/475810/sup ... pez-hawaii
The Supreme Court’s Republican majority spent much of Tuesday morning trying to figure out how two mutually exclusive principles can both be true at the same time. One principle is that all Second Amendment cases must be judged using a bespoke legal rule that only applies to the Second Amendment.
The other principle is that the right to bear arms must not be treated differently than other constitutional rights. Four years ago, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Republican justices struck down a century-old New York law that required anyone who wishes to carry a handgun in public to demonstrate “proper cause” before they could obtain a license allowing them to do so. On Tuesday, the Court heard Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to a Hawaii state law that appears to have been designed intentionally to sabotage Bruen.
Since the author of the latter was found smothered under a fat kid, erect but forever breathless, the burden of generating the supportive pap for ammosexuals was placed on the intellectually narrow, child bearing shoulders of Justice Free Ride Thomas....with the predictably hilarious result of Bruen.
It has become a sport since, within the junior circuits, to put SCOTUS on a spot obliging a defense of many of the absurd consequences of Free Ride's legacy, as in Rahimi. In that instance, his fellow conservatives hung him out to dry, leaving him alone to pen a churlish dissent.
Now Hawaii is back, and the risible flimsiness of Heller and Bruen are being highlighted.
https://www.vox.com/politics/475810/sup ... pez-hawaii
The Supreme Court’s Republican majority spent much of Tuesday morning trying to figure out how two mutually exclusive principles can both be true at the same time. One principle is that all Second Amendment cases must be judged using a bespoke legal rule that only applies to the Second Amendment.
The other principle is that the right to bear arms must not be treated differently than other constitutional rights. Four years ago, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Republican justices struck down a century-old New York law that required anyone who wishes to carry a handgun in public to demonstrate “proper cause” before they could obtain a license allowing them to do so. On Tuesday, the Court heard Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to a Hawaii state law that appears to have been designed intentionally to sabotage Bruen.
22 Jan 2026 9:10 am
For when @Vegas gets here
This text is written at a Post-Graduate / Professional reading level. It is highly sophisticated, though it uses that sophistication to deliver a polemic (a strong verbal attack).
To understand this passage, a reader needs more than just a high vocabulary; they need a deep grasp of American constitutional law, Latin legal shorthand, and contemporary political slang.
Key Metrics
Grade Level: 16+ (Post-Graduate/Law Student)
Vocabulary Complexity: Very High
Tone: Satirical, Academic, and Vitriolic
:rofl:
This text is written at a Post-Graduate / Professional reading level. It is highly sophisticated, though it uses that sophistication to deliver a polemic (a strong verbal attack).
To understand this passage, a reader needs more than just a high vocabulary; they need a deep grasp of American constitutional law, Latin legal shorthand, and contemporary political slang.
Key Metrics
Grade Level: 16+ (Post-Graduate/Law Student)
Vocabulary Complexity: Very High
Tone: Satirical, Academic, and Vitriolic
:rofl:
22 Jan 2026 9:12 am
On the scale of Bloom’s Taxonomy, this text operates primarily at the Evaluation level (Level 5/6), the second-highest tier of cognitive complexity. While typical reading comprehension focuses on the "Remembering" or "Understanding" levels (recalling facts or summarizing a story), this passage requires a reader to engage in "Higher-Order Thinking Skills" (HOTS) to decode the author’s intent.
:rofl:
:rofl:
22 Jan 2026 9:14 am
Yet you can't define the term woman.Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ On the scale of Bloom’s Taxonomy, this text operates primarily at the Evaluation level (Level 5/6), the second-highest tier of cognitive complexity. While typical reading comprehension focuses on the "Remembering" or "Understanding" levels (recalling facts or summarizing a story), this passage requires a reader to engage in "Higher-Order Thinking Skills" (HOTS) to decode the author’s intent.
Or
Answer a simple question like...
Can a man get pregnant?
22 Jan 2026 9:16 am
His buddies at another forum are as stupid on the topic as he is. They want me to post my definition of terms (men and women) before trying to answer. I said if you need a definition you are too far gone to be in the conversationFJB » 22 Jan 2026, 10:14 am » wrote: ↑ Yet you can't define the term woman.
Or
Answer a simple question like...
Can a man get pregnant?
22 Jan 2026 9:24 am
Blackvegetable » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ As his legions of Hatahs is painfully aware, Master Vegetable has been unstinting in his contempt for Bruen and Heller, two shibboleths supporting the straw temple of The Individual Right...
Since the author of the latter was found smothered under a fat kid, erect but forever breathless, the burden of generating the supportive pap for ammosexuals was placed on the intellectually narrow, child bearing shoulders of Justice Free Ride Thomas....with the predictably hilarious result of Bruen.
It has become a sport since, within the junior circuits, to put SCOTUS on a spot obliging a defense of many of the absurd consequences of Free Ride's legacy, as in Rahimi. In that instance, his fellow conservatives hung him out to dry, leaving him alone to pen a churlish dissent.
Now Hawaii is back, and the risible flimsiness of Heller and Bruen are being highlighted.
https://www.vox.com/politics/475810/sup ... pez-hawaii
The Supreme Court’s Republican majority spent much of Tuesday morning trying to figure out how two mutually exclusive principles can both be true at the same time. One principle is that all Second Amendment cases must be judged using a bespoke legal rule that only applies to the Second Amendment. The other principle is that the right to bear arms must not be treated differently than other constitutional rights. Four years ago, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Republican justices struck down a century-old New York law that required anyone who wishes to carry a handgun in public to demonstrate “proper cause” before they could obtain a license allowing them to do so. On Tuesday, the Court heard Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to a Hawaii state law that appears to have been designed intentionally to sabotage Bruen.
Deal:
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.
A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors
Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post:
[/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
22 Jan 2026 9:36 am
1. Specialized Jargon & Legal Literacy
The text assumes the reader is intimately familiar with landmark Supreme Court cases without explaining them.
"Bruen and Heller": Refers to NYSRPA v. Bruen and DC v. Heller.
"Rahimi": Refers to US v. Rahimi.
"The junior circuits": Refers to the U.S. appellate court system.
2. Tier-3 Vocabulary
The author uses "Tier-3" words—words that are rarely used in daily speech and are typically found in literature or legal briefs:
Shibboleths: A custom or belief distinguishing a particular class or group of people.
Unstinting: Given or giving without restraint.
Risible: Such as to provoke laughter.
Churlish: Rude in a mean-spirited and surly way.
3. Complex Allusion and MetaphorThe writing is dense with metaphor ("straw temple," "supportive pap") and specific, biting allusions. For example, the phrase "found smothered under a fat kid" is a crude, highly specific reference to the circumstances of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death (often the subject of conspiracy theories or dark humor in specific political circles).
Note: While the vocabulary is high-level, the tone is "Gonzo" journalism style—mixing intellectualism with aggressive, informal insults (like "Master Vegetable" or "Free Ride Thomas"). This juxtaposition is common in high-level political satire
The text assumes the reader is intimately familiar with landmark Supreme Court cases without explaining them.
"Bruen and Heller": Refers to NYSRPA v. Bruen and DC v. Heller.
"Rahimi": Refers to US v. Rahimi.
"The junior circuits": Refers to the U.S. appellate court system.
2. Tier-3 Vocabulary
The author uses "Tier-3" words—words that are rarely used in daily speech and are typically found in literature or legal briefs:
Shibboleths: A custom or belief distinguishing a particular class or group of people.
Unstinting: Given or giving without restraint.
Risible: Such as to provoke laughter.
Churlish: Rude in a mean-spirited and surly way.
3. Complex Allusion and MetaphorThe writing is dense with metaphor ("straw temple," "supportive pap") and specific, biting allusions. For example, the phrase "found smothered under a fat kid" is a crude, highly specific reference to the circumstances of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death (often the subject of conspiracy theories or dark humor in specific political circles).
Note: While the vocabulary is high-level, the tone is "Gonzo" journalism style—mixing intellectualism with aggressive, informal insults (like "Master Vegetable" or "Free Ride Thomas"). This juxtaposition is common in high-level political satire
22 Jan 2026 9:39 am
Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ 1. Specialized Jargon & Legal Literacy
The text assumes the reader is intimately familiar with landmark Supreme Court cases without explaining them."Bruen and Heller": Refers to NYSRPA v. Bruen and DC v. Heller."Rahimi": Refers to US v. Rahimi."The junior circuits": Refers to the U.S. appellate court system.
2. Tier-3 Vocabulary
The author uses "Tier-3" words—words that are rarely used in daily speech and are typically found in literature or legal briefs:
Shibboleths: A custom or belief distinguishing a particular class or group of people.
Unstinting: Given or giving without restraint.
Risible: Such as to provoke laughter.
Churlish: Rude in a mean-spirited and surly way.
3. Complex Allusion and MetaphorThe writing is dense with metaphor ("straw temple," "supportive pap") and specific, biting allusions. For example, the phrase "found smothered under a fat kid" is a crude, highly specific reference to the circumstances of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death (often the subject of conspiracy theories or dark humor in specific political circles).
Note: While the vocabulary is high-level, the tone is "Gonzo" journalism style—mixing intellectualism with aggressive, informal insults (like "Master Vegetable" or "Free Ride Thomas"). This juxtaposition is common in high-level political satire
Deal:
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.
A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors
Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post:
[/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
22 Jan 2026 9:42 am
22 Jan 2026 9:44 am
22 Jan 2026 9:45 am
Blackvegetable » 1 minute ago » wrote: ↑ @Vegas
Can you figure out why you won't be banned from this thread?
Another **** question. You will never stop hiding.
Deal:
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.
A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors
Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post:
[/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
22 Jan 2026 9:48 am
22 Jan 2026 9:49 am
22 Jan 2026 9:50 am
Deal:
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.
A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors
Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post:
[/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
22 Jan 2026 9:50 am
Nah, the question is for you. Not anyone else.
Deal:
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.
A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors
Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post:
[/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
22 Jan 2026 9:53 am
Nah, the question is for you. Not anyone else.
Deal:
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.
A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors
Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post:
[/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
22 Jan 2026 9:54 am
Deal:
A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.
A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors
Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post:
[/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
22 Jan 2026 9:57 am
Nah, the question is for you. Not anyone else.
Deal:
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.
A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors
Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post:
[/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
22 Jan 2026 9:58 am
Deal:
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.
A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors
Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post:
[/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
22 Jan 2026 10:04 am
Has @Vegas been totally demoralized ?
MAGAts!
Don't abandon him there in the field, eyes staring at a sun he cannot see, for the Arab women to strip naked, and leave to rot.
MAGAts!
Don't abandon him there in the field, eyes staring at a sun he cannot see, for the Arab women to strip naked, and leave to rot.
Who is online
In total there are 4016 users online :: 2 registered, 17 bots, and 3997 guests
Registered users: LowIQTrash, Cannonpointer
Bots: CriteoBot, Mojeek, Firefox/7.0, GPTBot, LCC, Pinterest, Baiduspider, ADmantX, Kinza, proximic, Mediapartners-Google, Googlebot, bingbot, YandexBot, linkfluence.com, curl/7, Applebot